Distribution: limited IFAP-2003/Council.II/9 Paris, 16 January 2003 Original: English UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION Intergovernmental Council for the Information for All Programme (Second Session) UNESCO House, Paris, Room XI (Fontenoy Building), 22-24 April 2003 Item? of the Provisional Agenda GUIDELINES FOR THE CREATION OF NATIONAL CO-ORDINATION FRAMEWORKS OR MECHANISMS FOR THE INFORMATION FOR ALL PROGRAMME Summary The Intergovernmental Council for the Information for All Programme, at its first session, requested the Bureau to establish guidelines for the creation of national co-ordination frameworks or mechanisms for the Information for All Programme, in co-operation with the Secretariat, and to present them to the Council at its second session. The Bureau took note of the draft guidelines prepared by the Secretariat (IFAP-2002/Bureau.II/5), and requested the Secretariat to survey UNESCO National Commissions on eisting coordination mechanisms and to report on the results in a revised document to be submitted to the Council. The present document presents a historical analysis of the former IIP and PGI national coordination mechanisms in section A and the results of the survey requested by the Bureau presented in section B. Section C presents proposals for an IFAP approach to national coordination and on the characteristics and responsibilities of possible IFAP National Committees, taking account of the results of the survey requested by the Bureau. Decision required: paragraph 26
IFAP-2003/Council.II/9 - Page 3 A. National coordination frameworks under PGI and IIP 1. Both predecessor intergovernmental programmes of IFAP encouraged the establishment of national coordination frameworks. Under the General Information Programme (PGI), Member States were invited to nominate both focal points and National Committees while for the Intergovernmental Informatics Programme (IIP), only nominations for focal points were officially registered although it was foreseen that they might take the form of National Committees. 2. At the time of the merger of the two programmes in January 2001, 124 Member States and one Associate Member had nominated national coordination frameworks for one or both programmes: 89 Member States and one Associate Member having nominated an IIP focal point and 86 Member States having nominated a PGI focal point and/or national committee (see Anne 1). 3. Member States nominated national coordination frameworks from a wide diversity of national institutions. although two-thirds of them were established within either a ministry or other government agency responsible for coordinating national activities or a major operational agency in information or informatics. Table 1 shows the distribution of these entities by institutional framework. Institutional framework IIP FP (1) PGI FP PGI NC (2) Total Ministry 33 27 21 81 Operational agency 21 32 13 66 Research 10 13 7 30 UNESCO Natcom 11 5 5 21 Higher education 12 1 0 13 Commercial enterprise 2 0 0 2 NGO 1 0 0 1 Total 90 78 46 214 Table 1. IIP and PGI national entities by institutional framework, (1) FP:Focal point, (2)NC: National Committee 4. It is of interest that only three Member States (Ghana, Mongolia, Philippines) have nominated the same organization as both IIP and PGI coordination entity. 5. The roles and characteristics of the national coordination frameworks for both former programmes are reviewed in the following sections. Other intergovernmental programmes of UNESCO also have national coordinating frameworks which would be useful to consider in the contet of the present document. The selection criteria and terms of reference for three of these programmes Management of Social Transformations Programme (MOST), Man and the Biosphere Programme (MAB), International Hydrological Programme (IHP) are described in Anne 2. It should be noted that i) their coordinating entities have generally been assigned more specific functions and responsibilities than those of IIP and PGI, and ii) these programmes differ from IFAP in their major orientation towards scientific research.
IFAP-2003/Council.II/9 - Page 4 a) PGI focal points and National Committees 6. In July 1973, after the creation of the UNISIST Programme (Intergovernmental Programme for Cooperation in the Field of Scientific and Technological Information), the Director-General invited Member States to establish national focal points for science information and UNISIST national committees. Focal points were specifically seen as governmental or government-chartered agencies with policy and planning responsibilities in the overall area of scientific and technological information. It was envisaged, however, that focal points could also have operational functions, either on principle or because there was no other suitable location for them. The Director-General's letter gave detailed guidance on how a national focal point could be organized and function in different national situations. 7. As opposed to the focal point whose essential functions were at the national level, the same circular letter defined the broad function of the UNISIST National Committee as advising the national focal point and other cooperating organizations on all aspects of participation in UNISIST. Detailed guidelines were given for this work at the levels of both policy (participation in UNISIST conferences and in the work of the UNISIST Steering Committee) and action (monitoring progress of the Programme, participating in programme initiatives and taking national initiatives as specific contributions to UNISIST). Again in contrast to the national focal point, the UNISIST National Committee was epected to ensure the appropriate representation of civil society elements, notably of the scientific community. 8. Within the UNISIST Programme, the focal points and National Committees were generally active and involved, notably in the organization of regional information policy meetings and in the preparation and testing of guidelines and standards. Often the person responsible for the IIP focal point or national committee served on the UNISIST Steering Committee when his/her Member State was elected to this body. 9. When PGI was created in 1976 by merging UNISIST with the much larger UNESCO programme for documentation, libraries and archives (DBA), the objectives and organizational framework were taken as they were supposed to cover all areas of specialized information. Member States were invited to reorganize their focal points and National Committees to cover all of the areas of competence of PGI. This was mainly effected by enlarging the representation in National Committees, and in some cases by naming an appropriate ministry or a national library or archives as focal point to replace a scientific and technological information centre. Perhaps because the new mandate of the PGI national coordination entities was not sufficiently clearly defined in the epanded programme, and perhaps due to inadequate organization of the UNESCO secretariat to meet the new communication needs, involvement of and communication with these coordination entities gradually decreased and effectively ceased in the early 1990's. An indication of this trend is the fact that none of the newly independent countries of Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia nominated PGI coordination entities, while five named IIP focal points. b) IIP focal points 10. After the establishment of IIP in 1985, Member States were invited to nominate IIP focal points whose principal responsibility was to facilitate contacts between the Programme and national institutions and bodies, particularly during the identification and inception stages of projects. Specifically, this responsibility involved channelling inputs from or contributions to the Programme, ensuring a consistent approach to the various activities in the country concerned, and disseminating information and publication related to the IIP. 11. In each country, it was foreseen that a focal point could be:
IFAP-2003/Council.II/9 - Page 5 an established national advisory board or committee on informatics; a department or an office within a Ministry; a specialized group within a science and technology body of a national scope; or a specialized committee within the National Commission for UNESCO. 12. The focal points for the Regional Informatics Network for Africa (RINAF) should be added to the IIP focal points. RINAF was launched in 1992 as a regional IIP framework for African cooperation in the area of telematics. 16 of the 43 RINAF members did not nominate IIP focal points but participated in IIP through their national RINAF focal points. 13. Contacts with IIP focal points were continued on an ad hoc basis up until the discontinuation of IIP as a separate programme. From the point of view of the UNESCO secretariat, the IIP focal points were generally seen to provide effective technical support for the formulation of IIP projects, often working in close consultation with UNESCO National Commissions. Often the persons responsible for the IIP focal points were chosen by Member States to serve on the IIP Intergovernmental Committee, providing continuity between national action and international strategy. B. Consultation with UNESCO National Commissions 14. The Bureau of the Intergovernmental Council of the Information for All Programme, in its second session, eamined a draft of the present document and recommended that the Secretariat "survey UNESCO National Commissions to identify what particular mechanisms Member States are using to provide... coordination and report thereon to the Council at its second session" and to take account of the results of the above in finalizing the present document. For this purpose, the Assistant Director-General for Communication and Information addressed a letter to National Commissions on 2 December 2002 (see Anne 3); in addition to the information requested by the Bureau, the letter invited the correspondents to specify any envisaged or recommended changes in the national coordination mechanism or in the overall IFAP approach to coordination. The results of this survey, taking account of replies received by 14 January 2003, are summarized in the remainder of this section. 15. Eleven of the 12 correspondents providing substantive replies designated national coordinators or committees dealing with IFAP matters, whereas one (Yugoslavia) indicated that a national committee was in the process of being established. Of the eleven with active coordinating mechanisms, four (Czech Republic, Egypt, Philippines and Tunisia) indicated that a specialized committee of the National Commission for UNESCO was handling the coordination function (with the Czech Republic indicating that a separate IFAP National Committee might be considered as the Programme develops), two (Italy and Thailand) indicated that the UNESCO National Commission was temporarily handling the function while a separate IFAP National Committee was being established, and five (Denmark, Hungary, Japan, Mali and Uzbekistan) identified separate IFAP coordinators or committees (in Japan and Uzbekistan the secretariat for the IFAP National Committee is provided by the UNESCO National Commission). 16. Mali has decided to maintain separate coordinators for information (former PGI) and informatics (former IIP) activities. Only two countries (Denmark and Mali) indicated that the a former IIP or PGI coordinator was still the correct contact.
IFAP-2003/Council.II/9 - Page 6 17. The correspondent of the Russian Federation pointed out that that country had already nominated an IFAP National Committee, so that in fact 12 countries have now nominated coordination mechanism for the new Programme. 18. No respondents recommended changes in the "overall IFAP approach to coordination". C. The future IFAP approach to national coordination 19. There are clearly advantages for an intergovernmental programme such as IFAP to set up a national coordination framework to facilitate and promote its work. In considering the appropriate modality to be adopted by IFAP, the following elements are proposed: The establishment of national focal points along the lines previously proposed by UNISIST and PGI, but etended to coordinate all information society policy issues, would not be a feasible endeavour in the short term for most Member States, particularly the developing countries; such mechanisms where they eist could rather be shared as eamples within IFAP with a view to stimulating debate on and development in this area. The IIP focal points and PGI National Committees shared similarities with the ongoing national committees of MOST, MAB and IHP; the latter could serve as models for IFAP National Committees. IFAP National Committees should bring together all concerned stakeholders, including government, civil society and the private sector, according to a clearly defined mandate. For a national coordination framework to be effective, specific responsibilities should be agreed in terms of information flow between national coordination entities and UNESCO, the epected contributions of the national coordination entities to IFAP, and the support function of UNESCO vis-à-vis these entities. Many UNESCO National Commissions already have committees dealing with communication and information. The added value of an IFAP National Committee would include: i) concentration on information society issues, ii) mandate and resources to contribute more substantively to IFAP, and iii) regular informal as well as formal consultation with the UNESCO/IFAP Secretariat and with other IFAP National Committees. 20. The following sections make proposals for the consideration of the Council on the characteristics and responsibilities of an IFAP National Committee: a) Structure and location 21. The IFAP National Committee should include representatives of all major national stakeholder groups in the information society including ministries; parliamentary committees; libraries and archives; informatics, telematics and telecommunication infrastructure and service providers; education and training institutions in the areas of information science and informatics; users of information and Information and Communication Technology services in education, science, culture and communication; producers of digital content; local communities and civil society. The secretariat for IFAP National Committee could be established, for eample: within a national advisory board or committee on the information society, information resource development, or ICTs; within a concerned ministry or government agency;
IFAP-2003/Council.II/9 - Page 7 as a specialized committee of the National Commission for UNESCO. b) Functions and responsibilities 22. The IFAP National Committee should, in co-operation with the UNESCO National Commission: i. identify and motivate national institutions concerned with the various objectives and activities of IFAP; ii. constitute a permanent forum to facilitate the flow of information between UNESCO/IFAP and interested national institutions; iii. regularly disseminate information about IFAP objectives and activities provided by the UNESCO/IFAP Secretariat, including a national IFAP website; iv. organise periodic national IFAP meetings and prepare an annual report on national activities to be addressed to the UNESCO/IFAP secretariat for publication by UNESCO and consideration by the IFAP Intergovernmental Council; v. facilitate appropriate national inputs to and participation in, as a member or as an observer, the sessions of the IFAP Intergovernmental Council, and IFAP related international and regional meetings; vi. advise on and organize epert assistance on the planning, implementation and evaluation of IFAP projects; vii. assist in obtaining funding for national participation in IFAP projects; viii. identify and formulate project proposals for consideration for funding through the IFAP Special Account. i. maintain contacts with other IFAP National Committees on questions of mutual interest. 23. The IFAP National Committee should have Statutes which clearly define its membership, mandate and procedures. c) Funding 24. The IFAP National Committee should have a budget to fund its own functioning (meetings of its members, co-ordination of IFAP at the national level, publication of information), as well as, whenever possible, to provide seed money for national IFAP activities and national participation in regional and international IFAP meetings. Any of several methods of financing could be considered depending on national circumstances, alone or in combination, for eample: a central government allocation allocations from concerned ministries and public agencies (including, in industrialized countries, the agency responsible for international development assistance) contributions of institutions represented on the National Committee (taking care that this does not eclude any relevant actors with limited resources) participation fees for national IFAP activities (again being careful not to beget eclusion) voluntary sponsorship, including of the private sector
IFAP-2003/Council.II/9 - Page 8 25. At the international level, the active contribution of IFAP National Committees could in the medium term substantially increase both the quality and efficiency of the Programme, including the possibility of cost savings due to devolution of certain activities and responsibilities. On the other hand, the effective support for a system of National Committees would require the specific allocation or re-allocation of resources in the UNESCO/IFAP Secretariat, notably in terms of material and human resources for communication with the Committees. 26. The Intergovernmental Council for the Information for All Programme may wish to adopt the following decision: The Intergovernmental Council for the Information for All Programme, 1. Having eamined document IFAP-2003/Council.II/? "Guidelines for the creation of national co-ordination frameworks or mechanisms for the Information for All Programme"; 2. Endorses the proposals for an IFAP approach to national coordination and the characteristics and responsibilities of proposed IFAP National Committees; 3. Invites the Director-General to request Member States to nominate IFAP National Committees on the basis of the above mentioned document; 4. Requests the Secretariat to report on the status of the IFAP National Committees to the Council at its 3 rd session.
IFAP-2003/Council.II/9 - Page 9 IIP and PGI national coordination entities Anne 1 Country IIP PGI FP PGI NC Afghanistan Albania Argentina Armenia Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bolivia Botswana Brazil Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Central African Republic Chad Chile China Colombia Congo Costa Rica Côte d'ivoire Cuba Cyprus Czech Rep. Denmark Dominica DPR Korea Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Finland France Gabon Germany
IFAP-2003/Council.II/9 - Page 10 Ghana Greece Grenada Guatemala Guinea Guyana Haiti Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kenya Lebanon Lesotho Lithuania Luembourg Madagascar Malawi Mali Malta Mauritius Meico Moldova Mongolia Morocco Nepal Netherlands New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Norway Pakistan Panama Papua New Guinea Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Qatar
IFAP-2003/Council.II/9 - Page 11 Republic of Korea Romania Russia Rwanda St. Vincent & the Grenadines Saudi Arabia Senegal Seychelles Slovenia Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Thailand Togo Tunisia Turkey Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Republic of Tanzania Uruguay Venezuela Vietnam Yemen Yugoslavia Zambia Zimbabwe Netherlands Antilles
IFAP-2003/Council.II/9 - Page 13 Anne 2 National coordinating frameworks of other UNESCO intergovernmental programmes a) MOST 1. The Management of Social Transformations (MOST) Programme encourages Member States to establish National Liaison Committees (NLCs) to spur co-operation among researchers, decision-makers and the Programme Secretariat. Member States are free to establish the structure and composition of a MOST NLC according to their own priorities. Liaison Committees are generally constituted with the support of UNESCO National Commissions, but any institution with responsibility for scientific policy, such as a national research council, may host a liaison committee. The composition of NLCs may include social science researchers based in universities or other research institutions and representatives of bodies co-ordinating research funding and of research-user groups such as governments, the private sector, trade unions, professional associations, NGOs or community based organisations. 2. The NLCs have a responsibility to: identify and motivate national institutions concerned with social science research related to the principle thematic interests of the MOST Programme; regularly disseminate information about MOST Programme activities sent by the MOST Secretariat to National Commissions; constitute a permanent forum to facilitate the flow of information between UNESCO- MOST and interested national institutions; assist the constitution of national research networks; assist in obtaining funding for groups participating in MOST projects from national bodies such as national research councils, or appropriate government Ministries. b) MAB 3. The Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme has interdisciplinary (including natural and social scientists) National Committees which are responsible for the national contribution to the Programme. The are composed of representatives of the main national scientific research centres in MAB's domains of competence, and of the concerned universities, institutions and ministries. A MAB National Committee should: in co-operation with the UNESCO National Commission, serve as a liaison between the different institutions and ministries concerned by the MAB Programme and UNESCO; liaise with the national structures responsible for the other UNESCO programmes in environment and development, i.e. the International Geological Correlation Programme (IGCP), International Hydrological Programme (IHP), Intergovernmental Oceanic Commission (IOC) and Management of Social Transformations (MOST) with a view to developing joint activities, as appropriate; ensure the national participation, as a member or as an observer, whenever appropriate, in the sessions of the MAB International Co-ordinating Council.
IFAP-2003/Council.II/9 - Page 14 4. The MAB National Committee should be in a position to: whenever possible, have a budget to provide seed money to national MAB activities and funds for its functioning (meetings of its members, co-ordination at the national level of its biosphere reserves; participation in regional and international meetings, publication of research results and diffusion of information); organise periodic meetings and prepare a report on national activities to be addressed to the MAB Secretariat at least every two years; ensure echanges of information and epertise and the development of communication systems and databases, including updating of the MABnet and if possible the creation and maintenance of a national MAB web site; ensure, whenever possible, participation in regional networks and in the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. c) IHP 5. The International Hydrological Programme (IHP) invites Member States to set up IHP National Committees, whose roles differ from country to country and depend on the national capabilities and the eisting institutional structure for hydrological studies and water resources management. The National Committees are invited to present written reports on their activities in the framework of the IHP. These National Reports are submitted to the IHP Intergovernmental Council and cover the activities for the period between Council sessions. The Council has recently initiated a discussion on updating the mandate and functioning of the National Committees. 6. Where no IHP National Committee has been established, a Focal Point or National Correspondent in the form of an organization or individual has been identified for channelling information about IHP to and from the country.
IFAP-2003/Council.II/9 - Page 15 7, place de Fontenoy 75352 Paris 07 SP United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization Organisation des Nations Unies pour l éducation, la science et la culture Anne 3 1, rue Miollis 75732 Paris cede 15 Tel : +33 (0)1 45 68 10 00 Fa : +33 (0)1 45 67 16 90 The Assistant-Director General for Communication and Information Ref: CI/INF/TEL/JR/2002/172 2 December 2002 Madam/Sir Subject: Coordination frameworks for the Information for All Programme (IFAP) Please find attached the document on the above subject, presented to the second meeting of the Bureau of IFAP held on 2-3 September 2002, which reviews the coordination frameworks which had been in place for the Intergovernmental Informatics Programme (IIP) and the General Programme for Information (PGI) and provides an analysis on the possible establishment of national focal points for IFAP. The Bureau took note of this document and recommended that it be etended to include a survey of the particular mechanisms which Member States are using for the coordination of the national cooperation within IFAP, and subsequent submission to the IFAP Council in its second session foreseen in April 2003. It would therefore be appreciated if you could reply on this matter by 10 January 2003 at the latest. In this contet, it would be important to learn whether the eisting national focal point(s) for the IIP and/or PGI are still functional. If you envisage or recommend changes in your country or in the overall IFAP approach to coordination, please feel free to specify the details in your reply. The coordinates of the IIP or PGI focal point(s) previously nominated by your country are indicated in the attached sheet. Yours sincerely, National Commissions for UNESCO Cc: Delegations to UNESCO Abdul Waheed Khan